Para-olympian, Oscar Pistorius, charged with murder after mistaking his girlfriend for an intruder (children, notorious)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Today's session was strange because they started out with one of the neighbours who heard the death of Reena Steenkamp, and then after lunch switched to testimony from one of Oscar's friends whom Oscar shot in the toe by mistake at a restaurant...
They start at ~ 9:30 a.m. their time, and end around 3 p.m., an hour or two for lunch....not a very long day in court...just saying.
Fascinating stuff, his outpouring of emotion may help his case somewhat.
Of course everyone thinks he did it, but just like a famous dingo case here, you cannot always be sure.
You can watch the trial Live on BBC online (if you get up really early!), or taped segments on Youtube. It's fascinating.
The system of justice and trial procedures are so different in South Africa. The lawyers are allowed to very aggressively question the witnesses, who so far have been neighbours of Pistorius's who heard sounds of a fight and a woman's screams preceding the gunshots.
The defense lawyer has been questioning the witnesses in a way that would be called badgering in a North American court of law, and asks them to speculate and conjecture --- really bizarre. The defense lawyer was arguing with one neighbour witness about whether or not a person could scream if they had been shot in the head, things totally outside a layman's scope of knowledge.
My thougths exactly, I am following the YouTube pieces, and was shocked at how rude and intrusive the defense lawyer is. It sounds as if the witnesse were the ones on trial. He makes such a fuss out of the smallest detail.
And in general, the whole thing looks so dramatic, and artificial.
My theory is that this is a remain of the Apartheid mindset. The Apartheid relied on a strict legal system, which separated the different races and roles....the whole thing was highly judicialized, a bit like Cuba, Soviet Unión, etc, basically any dictatorship where authority figures were untouchable and feared by the citizens ;in those places a trial was supposed to be "serious stuff", death penalty was common.
Look Nelson Mandela, for example...he was lucky he was not sentenced to death.
Just one thing about this case that doesn't make sense to me, they say he lives in an area where the crime rate is pretty high and that perhaps the best defense is to keep weapons at home and maybe even CCW, not sure about the CCW laws in his homeland maybe he didn't carry his weapon about, but one thing is forsure, he had proper training with his firearms right? or so they say, if that's the case why didn''t he or his family and or girlfriend have a (code word) to prevent (Blue on Blue shooting) it prevents such a mishap (friendly fire) from happeninig to being with? just a thought..
My thougths exactly, I am following the YouTube pieces, and was shocked at how rude and intrusive the defense lawyer is. It sounds as if the witnesse were the ones on trial. He makes such a fuss out of the smallest detail.
And in general, the whole thing looks so dramatic, and artificial.
My theory is that this is a remain of the Apartheid mindset. The Apartheid relied on a strict legal system, which separated the different races and roles....the whole thing was highly judicialized, a bit like Cuba, Soviet Unión, etc, basically any dictatorship where authority figures were untouchable and feared by the citizens ;in those places a trial was supposed to be "serious stuff", death penalty was common.
Look Nelson Mandela, for example...he was lucky he was not sentenced to death.
Yes, that's an excellent insight. I can only imagine how if it was not a highly publicized televised trial, that the defense lawyer would be attacking the witnesses even more.
I also noticed a distinct difference in how the defense addressed the two female witnesses, belittling them more than the male witnesses. The macho boxing buddy of Pistorius's got the most deferential treatment of all in my opinion.
And the way they constantly keep interrupting the witnesses to remind them to speak up--- can't they turn the audio up on their microphones?!!
The defense attorney also hammered the husband and wife witnesses about how similar their statements were--- why wouldn't their testimonies be similar if they heard the same things? Isn't that more a sign that they are telling the truth, and why wouldn't they be?--they have no skin in the game.
Also, there are statements the defense attorney makes that are not necessarily fact, and the prosecutor never points that out. The defense attorney keeps asking how anyone could hear screams through a closed bathroom door and walls, but Reeva could very well have been screaming as she ran to the bathroom and was being chased by the "blade-runner."
Just one thing about this case that doesn't make sense to me, they say he lives in an area where the crime rate is pretty high and that perhaps the best defense is to keep weapons at home and maybe even CCW, not sure about the CCW laws in his homeland maybe he didn't carry his weapon about, but one thing is forsure, he had proper training with his firearms right? or so they say, if that's the case why didn''t he or his family and or girlfriend have a (code word) to prevent (Blue on Blue shooting) it prevents such a mishap (friendly fire) from happeninig to being with? just a thought..
Actually I believe they live in a gated community in which the crime rate is actually low. Just like in America, those who live in gated communities, and are actually safer than in rough communities, are often the most paranoid about crime, in my opinion.
On the other hand, the incidence of domestic violence, rape and crimes against women is very high in South Africa. So I suppose women in gated communities are in just as much danger as women anywhere.
The incidence of sexual violence against women in South Africa is incredibly high: "Newspaper editorials and talk radio shows are examining traditional chauvinistic attitudes, gun control laws and weaknesses in the police and court systems that allow many perpetrators to walk free — thus discouraging women from reporting. This week police disclosed that they do not have enough rape kits, needed to collect evidence."
"A woman is killed by an intimate partner every eight hours in South Africa, a probable underestimate because no perpetrator is identified in 20 per cent of killings, according to a study published in August...by the South African Medical Research Council. That is double the rate of such murders in the United States, according to the report."
Fascinating stuff, his outpouring of emotion may help his case somewhat.
Of course everyone thinks he did it, but just like a famous dingo case here, you cannot always be sure.
There is no doubt he "did it." The question is under what circumstances.
Just one thing about this case that doesn't make sense to me, they say he lives in an area where the crime rate is pretty high and that perhaps the best defense is to keep weapons at home and maybe even CCW, not sure about the CCW laws in his homeland maybe he didn't carry his weapon about, but one thing is forsure, he had proper training with his firearms right? or so they say, if that's the case why didn''t he or his family and or girlfriend have a (code word) to prevent (Blue on Blue shooting) it prevents such a mishap (friendly fire) from happeninig to being with? just a thought..
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
Actually I believe they live in a gated community in which the crime rate is actually low. Just like in America, those who live in gated communities, and are actually safer than in rough communities, are often the most paranoid about crime, in my opinion.
Most people in South Africa that are middle class and above live in gated communities as the crime rate there is much higher than in the USA. So it isn't surprising that someone who is disabled like O.P. would want to keep a weapon close to them at all times.
The defense attorney also hammered the husband and wife witnesses about how similar their statements were--- why wouldn't their testimonies be similar if they heard the same things? Isn't that more a sign that they are telling the truth, and why wouldn't they be?--they have no skin in the game.
Yeah - that stood out to me as well
Really trying to hammer them, especially the wife, on why the stories were so consistent - accusing her of consulting her husbands testimony and using it as a template for her own
To me the common sense would be that if they were in the same area and heard the same sequence of events then their stories should be somewhat similiar
If my wife and I both witnessed a 2 car accident while sitting at a stop light that involved a blue car ramming a red truck it would be more of a credibility hit if one of us said the yellow tractor hit the red truck as opposed to us being consistent with blue car hits red truck
Another thing that was peculiar is the insistance of "are you sure that was a gunshot and not a cricket bat hitting a door" - i'm curious of what they are making these cricket bats out of that they would sound remotely anything like a gunshot, which is fairly unique in it's sound
Overall I don't have a ton of interest in the trial, but am drawn to it a little bit due to the differences within the systems and the actual procedure
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
